ArticleThe Permanente journal2015
Incentive-Based Primary Care: Cost and Utilization Analysis.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- General practice incentives: a review of the international literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of nurse-led self-management education on type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Multicomponent interventions for enhancing primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Direct Cardiovascular Event Costs: An International Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Do financial aspects affect care transitions in long-term care systems? A systematic review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Review
- Effects of mixed provider payment systems and aligned cost sharing practices on expenditure growth management, efficiency, and equity: a structured review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2018Review
- Effects of the Full Service Family Practice Incentive Program.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017Article
- The authors respond to: letters by Catherine Clelland and Shelley Ross.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017Article
- Incentive funding in BC is a key factor for physicians to remain in family practice.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017Article
- Optimizing Clinical Decision Support in the Electronic Health Record. Clinical Characteristics Associated with the Use of a Decision Tool for Disposition of ED Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Article
- The Impact of Payment Reforms on the Quality and Utilisation of Healthcare for Patients With Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn its fee-for-service funding model for primary care, British Columbia, Canada, introduced incentive payments to general practitioners as pay for performance for providing enhanced, guidelines-based care to patients with chronic conditions. Evaluation of the program was conducted at the health care system level.
objectiveTo examine the impact of the incentive payments on annual health care costs and hospital utilization patterns in British Columbia.
designThe study used Ministry of Health administrative data for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or hypertension. In each disease group, cost and utilization were compared across patients who did, and did not, receive incentive-based care.
main outcome measuresHealth care costs (eg, primary care, hospital) and utilization measures (eg, hospital days, readmissions).
resultsAfter controlling for patients' age, sex, service needs level, and continuity of care (defined as attachment to a general practice), the incentives reduced the net annual health care costs, in Canadian dollars, for patients with hypertension (by approximately Can$308 per patient), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (by Can$496), and congestive heart failure (by Can$96), but not diabetes (incentives cost about Can$148 more per patient). The incentives were also associated with fewer hospital days, fewer admissions and readmissions, and shorter lengths of hospital stays for all 4 groups.
conclusionAlthough the available literature on pay for performance shows mixed results, we showed that the funding model used in British Columbia using incentive payments for primary care might reduce health care costs and hospital utilization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.